Cyberspace has often been compared to the wild wild west—as a new frontier with no rules, no authority. But this is quickly changing: governments across the world are increasing cybersecurity budgets, strengthening public-private partnerships to secure the domain, and turning to one another to draw lessons on how best to regulate the space and combat their own understanding of “the cyber threat.” This is illustrated by the events of this week.

In Russia—following cyber attacks on LiveJournal and opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta (as we documented here two weeks ago)—authorities are expressing concern over the lack of Internet regulation in the country. As a result, a state tender released this week is calling for researchers to look at “foreign experience in regulating” the Internet. A spokesperson for Prime Minister Putin followed up by stating that state researchers would begin studying best practices in online regulation from countries such as China.

Increasingly, like-minded countries sharing similar concerns appear to be turning towards one another to seek out best practices, policy innovations, and solutions as pertaining to cyberspace (for instance, the Iranian and Chinese state have both expressed concern about Western hegemony over the space). The emergence of online controls as a “norm” has given rise to a contestation of norms in cyberspace. In what appears to be a promotion of normative change, the United States announced just this week that it is set to dedicate USD 28 million in new grants (to go towards projects such as circumvention/anonymity tools) to online activists—particularly in countries with major cyber controls.

In the past, US promotion of “net freedom” has been met with suspicion. Following Hillary Clinton’s 2010 “Internet freedom” speech, Chinese authorities accused the United States of information imperialism. In this case, a Chinese op-ed stated: “countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic information flow have to protect their national interest, and take steps toward this. This is essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of economic and social life. These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, though understood by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the people of Western countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue their claims purely from a Western standpoint.”

Like the idea of humanitarian intervention, Internet freedom promotion may be seen as a disguised form of aggressive Western imperialism by some. As Ma Zhaoxu of the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated after Clinton’s speech, “We urge the US to respect facts and stop attacking China under the excuse of the so-called freedom of Internet.” We can expect to see continued contestation over such meanings.

Leave a Reply

Infowar Monitor

The Information Warfare Monitor is an independent research activity tracking the emergence of cyberspace as a strategic domain. Our mission is to build and broaden the evidence base available to scholars, policy makers, and others.